If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.

NBA's top trade candidates

12-14-2012, 11:52 PM

NBA's top trade candidates

Former No. 2 pick Derrick Williams isn't getting much playing time in Minnesota. (Getty Images)

Most NBA players who signed contracts during the past offseason become eligible on Saturday to be traded. What that means: With a much larger pool of players available for deals, NBA general managers will start spending a lot more time on the phone in the coming weeks. "It's about to heat up on Dec. 15," one Eastern Conference general manager said. "Conversations are definitely happening because once Dec. 15 comes, the pool increases. You've heard a lot of rumors about Pau Gasol, Andrea Bargnani. The names are only going to grow on Dec. 15."
From conversations with several NBA executives, here's a list of players whose names figure to frequently surface in trade talks between now and the league's Feb. 21 deadline for deals. Andrea Bargnani (Getty Images)Andrea Bargnani: Toronto Raptors, 27, PF-C Contract status: Three years, $33.25 million remaining. Player opt-out in 2014. Due 5 percent bonus if traded. Buzz: Bargnani is sidelined with elbow and wrist injuries, tempering his short-term value. He hasn't lived up to the hype and injuries have been a concern throughout his career. Still, the young 7-footer can score and remains a sharp 3-point threat.
"Toronto definitely wants to move Bargnani," one NBA GM said. Marshon Brooks: Brooklyn Nets, 23, SG Contract status: Making $1.1 million in second year of rookie contract. Buzz: Brooks had a sensational rookie season averaging 12.6 points. But with the addition of Joe Johnson, Brooks has averaged just 6.2 points through his first 14 games this season. Sources said the Nets dangled Brooks in offseason trade talks, but his low contract number makes it difficult to get much of a return for him in a deal.
"They are one of the rare teams that can afford to keep their team at a championship level financially," an NBA GM said. "For them, the development of young players isn't important because they can overspend." Andrew Bynum: Philadelphia 76ers, 25, C Contract status: Making $16.1 million in last year of contract. Buzz: Bynum is still experiencing left knee pain that has kept him from making his debut with the Sixers, but is hopeful he can return sometime in 2013. He becomes a free agent at the end of the season and was expected to command a five-year contract approaching $100 million. His health problems threaten to substantially reduce that number. [Related: Kobe Bryant still sees hope in Lakers' rough start]
One NBA general manager said the Sixers have been making trade inquiries about adding a starting caliber center.
"They got to be a little panicked now," one GM said. "They could get a really interesting deal for him. I could see them doing that." Jose Calderon: Toronto Raptors, 27, PG Contract status: Making $10.5 million in last year of contract. Due a 10 percent bonus if traded. Buzz: Calderon has been mentioned as a possible trade candidate for years and has been linked with the Los Angeles Lakers in the past. Raptors starting point guard Kyle Lowry is expected to be sidelined another week with a partial tear to his right triceps muscle, but that shouldn't keep Calderon from being shopped.
"I believe 100 percent that they're trying to trade him," one GM said. Tyreke Evans: Sacramento Kings, G-F, 23 Contact status: Making $5.2 million in final year of contract year. Will be a restricted free agent at end of the season. Buzz: Evans recently had a positive conversation about his future with Kings general manager Geoff Petrie, a source close to the guard said. Evans thinks the franchise could match any offer sheet he potentially signs next offseason and would prefer to return to the Kings to prove he is a franchise player. But can the Kings afford him?
"If they can't pay him, they'll just move him," one GM said. Pau Gasol (Getty Images)Pau Gasol: Los Angeles Lakers, 32, PF Contract status: Making $19 million this season and due $19.2 million next season. Due a 15 percent bonus if traded. Buzz: Gasol was nearly dealt to the Houston Rockets last year and continued to be the center of trade whispers. The Lakers, however, aren't expected to seriously consider any deals for him until after he returns and gets a chance to play with Steve Nash, who is also currently sidelined. If a move does happen with Gasol, it will likely be much closer to the trade deadline.
"I believe that the message being conveyed to wait and see with Nash is accurate," one GM said. Tyler Hansbrough: Indiana Pacers, 27, PF Contract status: Making $3.1 million in final contract year. Will be restricted free agent at end of the season. Buzz: Hansbrough is averaging career-lows of six points, 4.2 rebounds and 16.1 minutes, but could be a good frontcourt addition for needy teams. By moving Hansbrough, the Pacers could potentially add a wing player to help soothe the loss of injured small forward Danny Granger.
"I'm surprised they haven't been playing him," one GM said of Hansbrough. Gerald Henderson: Charlotte Bobcats, G-F, 25 Contract status: Making $3.1 million in final contract year. Will be a restricted free agent at end of the season. Buzz: Henderson averaged 15.1 points last season and seemed to be coming into his own. A foot injury early this season, however, forced him to miss 13 games. The Bobcats have since primarily started rookie Jeff Taylor instead and a league source said the team is open to trading Henderson.
"If they don't look like they can afford him, they are probably going to move him," one NBA GM said. "They were playing their best basketball when he was hurt." Kevin Love: Minnesota Timberwolves, 24, PF Contract status: In first year of a four-year, $60 million contract. Can opt out after the 2014-15 season. Buzz: In an interview with Yahoo! Sports NBA columnist Adrian Wojnarowski, Love recently questioned the direction of the franchise under owner Glen Taylor and general manager David Kahn. Love isn't happy about not getting a five-year maximum contract, and some teams might try to explore acquiring him from Minnesota.
"I don't think that's a match that is permanent in Minnesota," a rival assistant GM said. "I'm not saying they're shopping, but if they can get the right deal they would look at it. And I don't think he wants to be there." Paul Millsap (AP)Paul Millsap: Utah Jazz, 27, PF Contract status: Making $8.6 million in final contract year. Buzz: The Utah Jazz are in the playoff hunt and have two starting big men in the last years of their deals in Millsap and Al Jefferson. Utah also has two talented young big men in Derrick Favors and Enes Kanter. Any big move by new general manager Dennis Lindsey, however, could disrupt Utah's playoff hopes.
"I would think they would more likely trade Millsap over Jefferson because he is going to be harder to keep," one GM said. "He's made less money than Jefferson and he will go to the highest bidder." Timofey Mozgov: Denver Nuggets, 26, C Contract status: Making $3.1 million in last year of contract. Will be a restricted free agent at end of the season. Buzz: Of their three centers, the Nuggets are most willing to part with Mozgov, who has proven in his short NBA career and Olympic play that he is a serviceable big man. The Nuggets probably won't try to re-sign him with two other free agents on the horizon: guard Andre Iguodala and reserve swingman Corey Brewer.
"It's logical because they have three centers and it's hard for [coach George] Karl to play them all," one NBA GM said. "The Nuggets are not a big revenue-generating team and they're not going to pay the tax." Anderson Varejao: Cleveland Cavaliers, 30, PF-C Contract status: Has $27.1 million remaining over final three years of contract. Due 5 percent bonus if traded. [Also: Carmelo Anthony is 'day-to-day' with ankle injury]Buzz: Varejao is having an All-Star season, averaging 14.3 points and 14.8 rebounds through 22 games. Cleveland, however, has one of the NBA's worst records so teams will at least ask about the availability of Varejao, whose stock is rising by the day.
"He is a target for trade, but I don't think Cleveland wants to trade him," one GM said. "There is a distinction between players teams might want to move and players teams want to have." Derrick Williams: Minnesota Timberwolves, 21, F Contract status: Making $4.8 million in second year of rookie deal. Buzz: Williams has had a disappointing career in Minnesota after being selected second overall in the 2011 draft. The highest draft choice in franchise history has been earning DNP-CDs or short-minute stints under coach Rick Adelman. Both sides would be happy with a move.
"They will move him in a heartbeat if they could," one rival team executive said. "I don't think the coaches are that high on him. You have to get something for him now because the longer he sits, the more people think he can't play."

Fo those listed, besides dreaming of Love, could we some how get Brooks out of New Jersey. He would be perfect off of the bench. If not Brooks I would take Calderon. Williams would be okay, but he would cost us too much to get.

Comment

Hmmm, West and George for Love works. What I like about it is we would get Love for 4 years, and not have to worry about replacing West at PF, or how much George will make. That seems like a good trade for both teams when you consider each teams situation.

I would rather keep the team we have though.

Comment

Am I the only one who wants no part of Kevin Love's hallow stat grabbing, non-defense playing, malcontent whiny @ss? Does anyone fear the mighty Kevin Love when we play the Wolves? I know I sure don't. He is a better version of Troy Murphy. Attitude may actually be worse though.

Comment

Hmmm, West and George for Love works. What I like about it is we would get Love for 4 years, and not have to worry about replacing West at PF, or how much George will make. That seems like a good trade for both teams when you consider each teams situation.

I would rather keep the team we have though.

This would make us much worse as we'd basically have zero scoring from the wing spot.

Never do unprotected immediately, I'd say top 3-5 protected or something, the Clippers found that out the wrong way trading their first round pick to get rid of Baron Davis' contract. They could've had Kyrie Irving if they had simply had a top 3 protection or something year 1.

"It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

----------------- Reggie Miller

Comment

Never do unprotected immediately, I'd say top 3-5 protected or something, the Clippers found that out the wrong way trading their first round pick to get rid of Baron Davis' contract. They could've had Kyrie Irving if they had simply had a top 3 protection or something year 1.

Absolutley. That or make it this year's pick only. Essentially no way its anything but a 10-24 pick, and it would be a catastrophic misstep to be a 10-14 lottery pick.

Comment

I'd trade just about anybody but George, as well as 2 1sts in order to nab Williams and Pekovic from Minnesota.

Really? No way. Pekovic is a good backup and Williams is a project. You would give up Hibbert, West, Granger, Hill, and/or 1st round picks for these two?
By the way, I don't think it would take a whole lot to nab Williams since his value is at an all time low.